I'm not sure about that. PG leans a lot on whether or not the new law "warps society", which could comport with a natural law view, but is more naturally interpreted as something more empiricist or pragmatic.
---
EDIT (in response to parent's edit #1): Everyone -- utilitarians, legal positivists, conventionalists, etc. -- thinks that the law should adjust to certain realities. Likewise, the parent's definition of "rules that humans...would voluntarily adopt" is orthogonal to questions about the source and authority of the law.
I am very sympathetic to natural law but PG's piece doesn't really strike me as falling one way or the other on this issue.
---
EDIT (in response to parent's edit #1): Everyone -- utilitarians, legal positivists, conventionalists, etc. -- thinks that the law should adjust to certain realities. Likewise, the parent's definition of "rules that humans...would voluntarily adopt" is orthogonal to questions about the source and authority of the law.
I am very sympathetic to natural law but PG's piece doesn't really strike me as falling one way or the other on this issue.
See also this comment and PG's response: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3694703 -- nothing to do with scarcity or technology, there.